Full Judgment
Mahesh Chandra, Member:
1. The present appeal has been filed against order dated 3.2.2001, passed by District Forum (New Delhi) in Complaint Case No. TC-355/1998 - entitled Shri A.C. Rishi v. UOI through The Chief Post Master General, New Delhi and Ors. By the impugned order the learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the appellant and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the appellant to be paid by the respondent and also directed that the same be recovered from erring employees of the Postal Authorities. Not satisfied by the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum, the appellant Shri A.C. Rishi has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as âthe Act).
2. The brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant sent 5 registered letters through respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 [vide Registry No. 2321 dated 10.12.1994 through respondent No. 6, No. 2607 dated 13.11.1995 through respondent No. 7, No. 509 dated 27.11.1995 through respondent No. 6, No. 2608 dated 13.11.1995 through respondent No. 7, and No. 2609 dated 13.11.1995 through respondent No. 8]. However, those letters were returned by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 with fake remarks. The Senior Post Master, Patiala has admitted by a letter that all the above said registered letters were irregularly returned by the postmen, respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The Post Master also informed that necessary action has been taken by him against the erring postmen. The appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Postal Department and also alleging deficiency in service specifically on the part of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the erring postmen and claimed compensation along with action against the erring postmen. The learned District Forum after hearing both the parties found the respondents guilty of deficiency in service as it was admitted by the Senior Post Master, Patiala that the letters were irregularly returned by the area postman of Pratap Nagar, Patiala. Hence the learned District Forum after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the respondent to pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost to the appellant which may be recovered from the erring employees.
3. No appeal has been filed by the Postal Department against this order. However, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant mainly on the ground that the relief granted by the District Forum is highly inadequate. The present appeal was admitted on the limited question of inadequacy of relief vide order dated 24.4.2001.
4. The respondent/Chief Post Master of Postal Department in his reply stated that the registered letters could not be delivered owing to non-availability of the address and hence the same were returned to the sender as per procedure. It was also asserted that there was no negligence or malafide on the part of the postmen and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The respondent, however, informed that the amount has already been paid to the appellant and departmental action has been taken against the two postmen. Hence the appeal should be dismissed.
5. The appellant on the other hand asserted that the relief granted by the District Forum was inadequate and he should have been awarded atleast Rs. 10,000/- as exemplary costs which should be recovered from the two postmen who were responsible for the non-delivery of the registered letters. The appellant also stated that he is a senior citizen and he has been fighting this cause for the last seven years and has incurred a lot of expenditure.
6. We have heard both the parties and have also carefully considered the documents on record. The appeal was admitted on the limited question of inadequacy of relief granted by the learned District Forum. However, the appellant has failed to show any ground on the basis of which the relief granted by the District Forum can be treated as inadequate or for further enhancement of the amount of cost. The appellant has not produced any evidence before the learned District Forum to prove the loss that he has suffered on account of the non-delivery of registered letters. Even before this Commission he has not been able to show any ground on the basis of which the compensation can be enhanced. The order of the learned District Forum is a well reasoned order and does not suffer from any infirmity. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned District Forum. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
Appeal dismissed.